Site Supporter

To speak or refer to Him in an "empty" manner with no useful purpose, either in prayer or teaching others.
e.g. Commonly used as a curse asking Him to damn someone or something, even (IMO) the common expression (OMG).

We are not under the law but who, being indwelt of the Holy Spirit, would even want to do this?

To speak or refer to Him in an "empty" manner with no useful purpose, either in prayer or teaching others.
e.g. Commonly used as a curse asking Him to damn someone or something, even (IMO) the common expression (OMG).

We are not under the law but who, being indwelt of the Holy Spirit, would even want to do this?

Doesn't it make you cringe?, If not we are spiritually ill.

HankD

Click to expand...

Romans 3:19-20 Paul defines the term "under the Law" to mean "under the condemnation of the Law" -- the lost are under the condemnation of the LAW - the TEN Commandments - to this very day.

The saints have the LAW known to Jeremiah in Jer 31:31-33 "written on the heart".

Thus it is "still" a sin to take God's name in vain - even for the saints.

AND even in the NT "SIN IS transgression of the LAW" 1John 3:;4 -- just as it was in the OT

Site Supporter

Sin is sin. Christians sin everyday by failing to meet God's moral law and holiness. Hopefully no one is saying they have attained sinless perfection.
The question is: Must we confess every sin for God's atonement of sin to be actualized? The answer is: No.
If we were to lose our salvation because we failed to confess every time we fell short of perfectly following God's moral law, we would spend eternity in hell and God's grace would not exist at all. Salvation would be by works and works alone.
But, we are covered by God's grace. We don't continue in sin so as to abuse grace, but we know that God is gracious in regard to our corrupt nature.

Moderator

The issue is that the Ten Commandments are a part of the Law which was given to Israel at a specific time in history as a covenant. It was not given to the world, it was given to Israel. And it was not given to Israel prior to the exodus (Deut. 5).

But the Law reflects (as does anything God does) God’s own nature and God’s moral law (God is immutable). So it was wrong to steal outside of the Law as it was under the Law. The difference is categories – what are the moral aspects of the Law reflecting God’s universal moral law and what was commanded of Israel under that covenant pointing, as the Law itself points, to its fulfillment in Christ?

Site Supporter

Romans 3:19-20 Paul defines the term "under the Law" to mean "under the condemnation of the Law" -- the lost are under the condemnation of the LAW - the TEN Commandments - to this very day.

The saints have the LAW known to Jeremiah in Jer 31:31-33 "written on the heart".

Thus it is "still" a sin to take God's name in vain - even for the saints.

AND even in the NT "SIN IS transgression of the LAW" 1John 3:;4 -- just as it was in the OT

Click to expand...

Bob, anyone who wants to keep the commandments should keep the whole law not just the 10 commandments.

Deuteronomy 11
26 Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse;
27 A blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you this day:
28 And a curse, if ye will not obey the commandments of the LORD your God, but turn aside out of the way which I command you this day, to go after other gods, which ye have not known.

One infraction and those who attempt to keep the law are guilty of the whole law.

James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

Deuteronomy 28:15 But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee:

When that happens to those who try:The cure:

Matthew 11
27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.
28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

The Spirit of Christ has freed us from the law of sin and death and He never leads us into sin.
In fact He has given us a new heart of regeneration that does not want to sin.

Jesus was of the notion that Jews are superior, and that He came to save the Jews first. Paul wanted Christianity to be available to all people, even people who did not follow Jewish law. However, Jesus said, "Not one letter shall pass away from the law until all is accomplished."

The essence of sin is conscience. Leviticus 5 implies that if a man utters a rash oath, when the man becomes aware of his sin, he shall be guilty of the sin.

The Ten Commandments were indeed intended specifically for the Israelites, as the bare minimum legal standard. But there is nothing in scripture to suggest it is permissible to violate any of the Ten Commandments. However, the law keeps evolving.

During the fifteenth century the Church proclaimed that it is adultery for a married man to have relations with an unmarried woman. The entire world, even Catholics, ignored the edict. If one is to read Roman history, it is readily apparent that marriage laws were entirely male-chauvinistic. Married men were legally permitted unlimited access to unmarried females, and the wife had no recourse.

I know I've drifted a bit from the OP, but I'm illustrating a point of how the law can change. Ancient Roman males could divorce their wives for practically any reason. A wife on the other hand were required to prove she had been abandoned or that the husband tried to murder her.

It was the puritans from England who first adopted the Catholic teaching on male adultery. During the time of Christ, it was expected that a man would sire children by his maidservants. It was encouraged that every man sire children by all the females not of blood relation to himself in his household!

The new understanding of adultery is one of the things that strengthened marriage in the United States. Now it's considered a sin for a married man to have relations with an unmarried woman. But until the fifteenth century there was no such teaching observed by any culture, not even Jewish culture.

Even today, it is only Western culture that observes monogamy for males. So, if anything, the Commandments of God have become more stringent today than in the past. My understanding of taking the Lord's Name in vain is using the Holy Name to strengthen an oath, or to use it in an empty context, as an exclamation of sorts.

I don't claim to be 100% positive about that last part. Perhaps others have some ideas.